destroy the family destroy society

When feminists first set their minds toward the destruction of the family, they focused their attacks on the most vulnerable segment of American society: African Americans. Eleanor Roosevelt, notorious feminist icon, put a great deal of effort into creating the social programs that ultimately eroded the black family as early as the 1940s, but the killing blow was matrifocal welfare programs put in place during the Johnson Administration. Rather than focus on keeping black men employed and able to provide for their families, Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act with full affirmative action for women (white women benefited from affirmative action more than anyone) and created a welfare system that rewarded women for illegitimate births and single motherhood. As black men were cast off, rootless, America’s remedy was to build an enormous incarceration industry. Today, the primary form of “welfare” for black men in the United States is the criminal justice system.

Congratulations, feminists! You have finally succeeded in destroying “patriarchy” in one segment of American society. With one third of young black men under some form of penal supervision and well under 50% growing up with their fathers, you really have something to clap your hands about.

Since 1950, the number of one-parent families has increased substantially. In 1970, about 11 percent of children lived in single-parent families. During the 1970s, divorce became much more common, and the number of families headed by one parent increased rapidly.In 2002, 16.5 million or 23 percent of all children were living with their single mother. This group included 48 percent of all African-American children, 16 percent of all non-Hispanic white children, 13 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander children, and 25 percent of children of Hispanic origin. Households headed by a single father increased substantially after the early 1980s, reflecting society's changing attitudes about the role of fathers in child rearing. Now In America: In the African American community, 72 percent of Black children are raised in a single parent household.
The Master shows the moon, the silly man looks at the finger.

Peter has a chart that shows global temperatures are on the rise. He flips it to reveal that the number of pirates around the world have been steadily decreasing. Therefore, global warming is caused by the subsequent genocide of the pirate population.

When u destroy the patriarch to build the matriarch you push out the desire for the father.

When decide woman are eqaul to man in certain roles you degrade men.

Empowered woman dont need. Degraded men, its cool woman want justice n eqaulity im all for fairness, but families need mother n father both compoents are necessart. Im goin to take a leap n say u were raised by a single mother

I'm willing to discuss this in further detail when I get home later. But I will state the following....

Your idea of a nuclear family is flawed. Your definition of feminism is flawed. Your scarcity mindset is flawed. And in no way shape or form does giving equal rights to one disenfranchised minority take away the rights of other already enfranchised group.

Im sure you dont care that men arent raising their babies.. Woman deserve respect n honor, but I can show proof that law accomodates woman in regards too preservation bur forcing woman into the market place and into the economy takes them away from kids. Take that and add the fact government encourages divorce n single parenting by entitlments you destroy any need gor the father accept of course thru monetary donations. I have two illegetimate children bc of this and id die to raise my daughters

(I have to break up this post as maximum characters allowed are 7500, and tis is 11050. Wow... I knew I can be a longwinded writer but schucks...)

Here's the thing, you don't strike me as an idiot. TheBigPayback? He's an idiot. You? You strike me as someone who is learning a lot of new things about this world. That's cool. In a lot of things, you've yet to make up your mind, you're still exploring. For this, I apologize if I come off as patronizing.

> When feminists first set their minds toward the destruction of the family,

Feminism never set their mind on the destruction of the family. First off, that statement is hyperbole at best. You can't just say things and expect it to be taken seriously. Not unless you have something to back it up with.

For example, here is a link that feminism is actually a mass of a variety and differently degreed ideological, political, and active movements. None of which have ever set their mind on the destruction of the family.

> the killing blow was matrifocal welfare programs put in place during the Johnson Administration.

In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973. They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since.[6]

Click to expand...

Personally, despite what any political testing survey says, I like to think of myself as a conservative. Which means, at least in this case, I don't put too much stock in welfare programs. I believe each of us as individuals are responsible for our own actions.

What we're not responsible for are the forces that are more powerful than us that have so much control over our lives. Since the very start of American history, there has been a systematic (and patriarchal) endevour to disenfranchise people of color. Not just black people either. The Natives, the Chinese, the Irish, etc. Slavery was just one facet of it, but it continued on into the projects, the ghettos, and then some.

With the civil rights movement (which often worked along side the feminist movement), there was the awareness and need to change things. Sadly, the patriarch still had much of it's control. (Even to this day. You would be hard pressed to find an American film in which there is a black man and a white women romance. Even harder to find a Chinese protaganist that isn't Jackie Chan or Jet Li.)

The fact remains that regardless of the circumstances that cause it, a nation can not be expected to succeed when any part of it's population isn't recieving it's basic needs. Nor can that population be expected to rise above without their basic needs being met. Conservative though I may be, I still believe that this nations government has a responsibility to make sure it's citizens are clothed, fed, and housed. Without welfare, this can't be done. But it's a start, which is important.

Many observers point out that the War on Poverty's attention to Black America created the grounds for the backlash that began in the 1970s. The perception by the white middle class that it was footing the bill for ever-increasing services to the poor led to diminished support for welfare state programs, especially those that targeted specific groups and neighborhoods. Many whites viewed Great Society programs as supporting the economic and social needs of low-income urban minorities; they lost sympathy, especially as the economy declined during the 1970s.[9]

Click to expand...

The real problem is ignorance and selfishness.

> Rather than focus on keeping black men employed and able to provide for their families,

That's utterly bullocks. The reason being is two things. One is that it's the individual's responsibility to be employed. The second thing being is that the Civil Right's Act was signed exactly and especially for the purpose of employment for people of color (as well as those of various ethnicities, national origins, religious minorities, and women.)

In actual real world practical application, did it help? Yes. And no. It helped because "You're black" is no longer a valid reason not to hire someone. I repeat, "You're black" is no longer a valid reason not to hire someone. I repeat that because your argument is that President Johnson (in conspiracy with the feminsts movement somehow) are trying to continue to keep the black man down by making it harder for them to get jobs. The fact, however, is that President Johnson made incredible leaps for minorities and people of color.

But I can tell you from experience, being of a variety of minorities myself, employers can look for reasons not to hire someone. You can't legislate racism.

You can, however, as the goal of many feminists movements, make race a non-issue. By restructing long standing stereotypes and views of minorities, and explaining why they're wrong, and why they should be dismissed, later generations will hopefully grow in such a way that prejudices no longer exist.

> (white women benefited from affirmative action more than anyone)

This is very dangerous logic you're touching upon. Women benifitting more is not necessarily a bad thing. You must understand that women had a lot less to start with. Let's see if I can't explain this in simpler terms...

Let's say you and I both have computers. Both of them are old, but mine is marginally older than yours. One day, Blizzard releases Starcraft III for everyone. I don't know if you're big on games, but work with me here. We both want to play it, but neither of our computers are up to date enough.

Suddenly, Sarah Kerrigan comes down from the heavens to address our problem. She says she will, for free, offer us both the upgrades we need to play the game. Now, you're computer being newer, it just needed a new video card. But mine? Mine needed a new video card, a new sound card, an upgraded processor, and about a thousand more gigabytes of RAM.

Did I benifet more from this? Yes. However, we are now on an equal and level playing field. We can now both play Starcraft III. Does that make sense?

Outlawing discrimination does not benifet white cismales because they weren't being discriminated against to begin with.

> and created a welfare system that rewarded women for illegitimate births and single motherhood

One of the things I like to do is pick fights with people on the internet about all sorts of things. I do this because I put myself in a corner where I have to defend myself, I subsequently educate myself and learn all sorts of cool things. Like right now, I've looked over the titles of the Civil Rights Act and in no way does it address your claim.

Now, I am familiar with the concept you're referring to. The Welfare Queen. However, this isn't something that's built into law. This is a case of welfare fraud, which is illegal.

Moreover, it's also done by both genders. There are many cases of able bodied men who commit fraud to get out of work and "live off the system."

Again, welfare's primary design is to provide for the populations basic needs. Sadly, American does this poorly (pardon the pun.)

However, it's a serious issue that can't be whipped away with a mere reductio ad absurdum.

> As black men were cast off, rootless, America’s remedy was to build an enormous incarceration industry.

Speaking of absurd... that's just silly to think feminism had anything to do with the increase prison system.

Yes, high incarceration rates are a serious problem. No, it doesn't have to do with feminism. It has to do with capitilism and the patriarchy. It is the rich white cismale that benifets from the prison system, it is the rich white cismale that benifets from poverty.

Essentially, your post is merely a gross hyperbole of ignorance and the confusion of association with causation.

> Since 1950, the number of one-parent families has increased substantially. cont._

This is an example of false cause. These two aren't directly related. One would argue that captilism and a class base system has more to do with single parent families.

> When u destroy the patriarch to build the matriarch you push out the desire for the father.

No. First off, you're using 'patriarch' in the literal sense of the term. Second, you're assuming that when one is gone, the antithesis must fill the vacuum. Feminism promotes the tertium quid of equality.

> When decide woman are eqaul to man in certain roles you degrade men.

This is ignorant sexism. You know what kind of people use this sort of logic? The Ku Klux Klan. Because to consider black people equal to white people is an insult to white people.

It's also things like this that piss me off the most because it implies that there is something inherintly flawed with women.

I want you to sit there and think about that for a second. If men and women are equals, and that's an insult to men, you are saying women are flawed.

That's bigotry.

> Im sure you dont care that men arent raising their babies..

There are many feminists that point out the dispariging inequality of the court system to favor women over men. This is because of the logic that kids do need both parents, but if they have to be split, the primary care taker should be the one most fit to raise the child. Not based on gender.

> I have two illegetimate children bc of this and id die to raise my daughters

I think that's your problem. You have an ex that is successfully raising children and you're not. The only thing stopping you is you. You can blame feminism all you want until you realize you're on the same side.

Remember when you said that the truth is you're just angry at GOD? Well... the only GOD you have any right to be angry at is the one within yourself.

You'd die to raise your daughters, but that's sacrificial. You need to be proactive and simply do it. Is it easy? Hell no. But I've seen it done. The sad fact of the matter is, you have to gird your loins, you have to suck it up, and you have to fight. The court system won't make it easy, but it's not impossible either.

Believe it or not, I can relate more than you think. Other people are raising my child besides myself. I'm a minority, in a minority, in a minority. It's not easy. I readily admit that, seeing as how I'm fighting for survival right now, I'm in no position to raise a child. I'm not getting any entitlements. I have to live up to my own personal responsibility.

---

Again, I apologize for being patronizing. I got a big ego and I love to lord it over people, but that's not what I'm trying to do in this post. I'm hoping that you'll maintain a skeptical perspective, and remain vigilante against wild claims.

I also hope you take up learning logical fallacies. Being able to recognize them cuts through a lot of the bullcrap people spout.

Thank you alice as you cleared up a lot of my confusion. I do believe the government in some shape or form has an agenda against the nuclear family im just going to have to digdeeper to be more convincing

Ok I realized I said nuclear family in which I am embarassed for using the wrong wordwhat I mean is the agenda to force mother and fathers to raise children seperately. And I dont have anything wrong wialternative families just sad for the kids not being raised by mother n father together